Erika Chozik

On a Crown motion in a sexual assault prosecution, the court refused to admit alleged other discreditable conduct evidence said to show grooming, actus reus, mens rea, and support for the complainant's credibility.

Applying the governing framework for similar fact and other discreditable conduct evidence, the court held the proposed evidence lacked a defined non-propensity issue, had no logical nexus to the charged assault, and invited impermissible character reasoning.

The court also found parts of the proposed evidence were independently inadmissible as hearsay about others' perceptions or improper lay opinion.

The application was dismissed because any minimal probative value was far outweighed by severe moral and reasoning prejudice.

The accused applied for a stay of proceedings under s. 11(b) of the Charter following his conviction for sexual assault at a second trial.

The first trial ended in a mistrial declared by the judge due to scheduling issues.

The court found that the net delay exceeded the 30-month presumptive ceiling under the Jordan framework.

While the mistrial was an exceptional circumstance, the subsequent 9.5-month delay to schedule the second trial was largely systemic and unreasonable.

The court also found the accused suffered specific prejudice due to the delay.

The application was granted and a stay of proceedings was ordered.

The accused pleaded guilty to possession of 500 grams of cocaine for the purpose of trafficking.

The Crown sought a penitentiary sentence of three years, less credit for pre-sentence custody and restrictive bail.

The court considered the six years the accused spent on strict bail conditions as a significant mitigating factor, reducing the fit sentence to two years less a day.

Finding the accused posed no danger to the community and had demonstrated significant rehabilitation, the court imposed a 17-month conditional sentence after deducting credit for pre-sentence custody.

The accused, charged with sexual offences against minors, brought an application during his re-trial to admit evidence that he had offered to take a polygraph test when confronted with the allegations.

A similar application had been dismissed during his first trial, which ended in a mistrial.

The court held that the accused failed to rebut the presumption under section 653.1 of the Criminal Code that the prior ruling was binding.

Furthermore, the court found that the offer to take a polygraph was inadmissible as it was not a spontaneous utterance, had marginal probative value, and its admission would be highly prejudicial to the fairness of the trial.

The plaintiff construction management company sued the defendant property owner for wrongful termination of a pre-construction and construction services contract.

The defendant argued the termination was justified because the plaintiff repudiated the contract by failing to perform core duties, meet the target budget, and meet the completion date.

The court found that the plaintiff continued to perform its duties, the budget and timeline delays were caused by design and permitting issues outside the plaintiff's control, and the plaintiff did not repudiate the contract.

The court held the defendant terminated the contract without justification and awarded the plaintiff $281,345.52 in damages for lost profits and outstanding invoices, subject to the contractual interest rate.

This was an uncontested trial where the applicant sought orders for equalization, lump sum spousal support, occupation rent, and costs.

The respondent failed to attend the trial, settlement conference, or trial management conference, and did not provide financial disclosure as ordered.

The court imputed income to the respondent and valued the parties' business based on available evidence and adverse inferences.

The applicant was awarded a significant equalization payment and lump sum spousal support based on needs, but her claims for occupation rent and specific enforcement orders (extension of Certificate of Pending Litigation, direct payment from matrimonial home sale proceeds) were dismissed.

Full indemnity costs were awarded against the respondent due to his conduct.

The Crown applied for an order under s. 486.2(2) of the Criminal Code to permit the complainant (A.I.) to testify remotely via closed-circuit television (CCTV) in a sexual assault trial.

The complainant, an adult, reported anxiety and PTSD symptoms.

The court dismissed the application, finding the Crown did not establish on a balance of probabilities that CCTV would facilitate a full and candid account or be in the interests of justice.

The judge noted the evidence was dated, lacked sufficient foundation, and the application was premature, emphasizing that CCTV orders are not "automatic" and require proper evidentiary support and witness preparation.

The applicant and respondent separated after a 30-year traditional marriage.

The respondent had retired and was receiving a pension.

The applicant sought a lump sum equalization of the pension.

Shortly after learning of this claim, the respondent transferred his unencumbered property to his brother for no consideration.

The court found the respondent and his family members lied under oath and that the transfer was a fraudulent conveyance intended to defeat the applicant's claim.

The court ordered the pension to be divided by a lump sum equalization payment of $356,950.18.

The court declined to order ongoing spousal support to avoid double dipping, as the respondent's only income was the pension being equalized.

The accused was charged with impaired driving causing death, dangerous driving causing death, and refusing to provide a breath sample after his vehicle plunged into Lake Ontario, resulting in the death of a passenger.

The Crown relied on circumstantial evidence to prove the accused was driving.

The court accepted the accused's testimony that he and the deceased had switched seats prior to the accident, raising a reasonable doubt as to identity.

The court also found that the accused's symptoms of impairment were equally consistent with hypothermia, and that the breath demand was not unequivocal.

The accused was acquitted on all counts.

The applicant sought a stay of proceedings for Charter breaches (ss. 7, 8, 9, 12) related to an unlawful arrest and excessive force by police.

The Crown conceded the unlawful arrest due to a deficient Feeney warrant.

The court found that police used excessive force, violating the applicant's ss. 7 and 12 Charter rights, particularly regarding a "shield takedown" and physical contact.

However, the court determined that a stay of proceedings was not warranted as it was not one of the "clearest of cases" and alternative remedies like sentence reduction and financial restitution were available to uphold the integrity of the justice system.

The Applicant, Parteek Ghuman, faced charges of possession of fentanyl for trafficking and obstruction of justice.

He brought a Charter application (voir dire) to exclude evidence obtained during a warrantless vehicle search and alleged violations of his s. 8 (unreasonable search/seizure) and s. 10(b) (right to counsel) rights.

The court found that the police officer lacked reasonable grounds for the search under the Cannabis Control Act, using it as a pretext for a criminal investigation.

The officer also failed to promptly inform Ghuman of his right to counsel upon detention and delayed implementing that right after arrest.

Concluding that the cumulative breaches were serious and impacted Ghuman's Charter interests significantly, the court excluded the evidence (fentanyl, cash, digital scale, cell phones, and false name) under s. 24(2) of the Charter, leading to Ghuman's acquittal.

Domenic Pasqualino brought a motion to vacate a writ of enforcement issued by MGW Homes Design Inc. under the Construction Act, which was based on an Adjudicator's determination.

MGW failed to provide notice of filing the determination with the court within the statutory 10-day period as required by s. 13.20(3) of the Act.

The court ruled that strict compliance with this notice requirement is mandatory for the determination to be enforceable as a court order.

Consequently, the writ was deemed void due to non-compliance, and Pasqualino's motion was granted.

The court also addressed the issue of costs, awarding them to Pasqualino.

The applicant father and respondent mother separated after a six-year marriage characterized by family violence perpetrated by the applicant.

The applicant sought joint decision-making and equal parenting time, while the respondent sought sole decision-making and primary residence.

The court found that the applicant engaged in a pattern of coercive and controlling behaviour, making joint decision-making impossible.

The court awarded sole decision-making and primary residence to the respondent, with the applicant having alternating weekend parenting time.

The court also determined the date of separation to be May 23, 2020, and ordered the applicant to pay equalization, retroactive and ongoing child and spousal support, and proportionate section 7 expenses.

The court declined to admit surreptitious recordings made by the applicant.

The two accused were found guilty by a jury of human trafficking, procuring, and advertising sexual services.

Augustin was also found guilty of receiving a material benefit from human trafficking and procuring.

The accused exercised significant control over the complainant, forcing her to provide sexual services to numerous men in inhumane conditions and taking all her earnings.

The court sentenced Augustin to 8 years imprisonment (less 11 months credit) and St. Armand to 5 years imprisonment (less 6 months credit), noting the severe impact on the victim and the need for denunciation and deterrence.

Following a family law trial, the court issued supplementary reasons to determine the exact quantum of retroactive spousal support, tax implications, and costs.

The court ordered the applicant husband to pay $86,108 in retroactive spousal support and a $36,433 catch-up payment, with no tax deductions applied to the lump sums, directing the parties to seek reassessment from the CRA.

The respondent wife was deemed the successful party at trial, having prevailed on the duration and quantum of support, and was awarded $30,000 in costs.

The father brought a motion to change a 2011 final order regarding child support and section 7 expenses for their 21-year-old child.

The court found a material change in circumstances occurred when the child moved in with the father in 2018.

The court imputed an annual income of $75,000 to the mother, finding her intentionally unemployed.

A budget of $28,000 per year was set for the child's post-secondary education, to be shared proportionately.

The mother's claims for retroactive support and section 7 expenses were largely dismissed.

The appellant appealed his summary convictions for impaired driving, 'over 80', and dangerous driving.

He argued that the trial judge erred in her findings regarding identity and alleged violations of his rights under sections 8, 9, and 10(b) of the Charter.

The Superior Court of Justice found that the trial judge's findings of fact were supported by the evidence and entitled to deference.

The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to demonstrate that the verdicts were unreasonable or the product of a material misapprehension of evidence.

This endorsement addresses the costs of motions brought by Broccolini Construction (Toronto) Inc. ("Broccolini") to reduce a lien registered by Elegant Façade Inc. ("Elegant") and for security for costs, as well as an earlier refusals motion.

Broccolini was successful in significantly reducing the lien amount and obtaining an order for security for costs.

The court rejected Elegant's argument to reserve costs to trial, finding that the motions resolved sub-issues definitively.

Considering the complexity, importance, and Elegant's unreasonable litigation conduct, including an exaggerated lien claim and failure to accept a reasonable offer, the court awarded Broccolini substantial indemnity costs totaling $119,453.85.

The plaintiff brought a motion to amend her Statement of Claim, while the defendant brought a motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the plaintiff's action challenging the validity of a Will.

The plaintiff alleged lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and suspicious circumstances regarding the Will, which excluded her from the estate.

The court granted summary judgment in favour of the defendant, finding no genuine issue requiring a trial.

The plaintiff's evidence was deemed uncorroborated and outweighed by credible independent evidence from the defence.

In the alternative, had summary judgment not been granted, the court would have allowed the plaintiff to amend her pleadings (to add a party), struck irrelevant portions of her pleadings, and ordered her to post $45,000 as security for costs due to the low chance of success and her impecuniosity.

The defendant was awarded $15,000 in costs.

The trial addressed spousal support, retroactive spousal support, pension division, and occupation rent following a 38-year conventional marriage.

The court awarded the Wife indefinite spousal support at the Spousal Support Advisory Guidelines (SSAG) mid-range, subject to review upon the Husband's retirement, and a "catch up" amount for past support.

Retroactive spousal support was ordered from fall 2017, based on effective notice and the Wife's emotional means.

The Husband's pension was ordered to be divided as of the date of separation, and his claim for occupation rent was dismissed due to his failure to pay spousal support and contribution to the delay in selling the matrimonial home.